Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Manchu wrote:I was chatting with a good friend over the weekend and he had a very convincing take on the movie: basically, that the whole trilogy is about Bruce trying to create this symbol to stand against all the things that are wrong with the world, the reasons why his parents got murdered on the street. Yeah -- everyone knows that. But the key insight, the eureka moment for me was realizing that Bruce doesn't really understand what those problems are and therefore doesn't really know what kind of symbol he needs to create. I'm so used to thinking he totally understood what Batman was about from the start that it never even occurred to me that Bruce himself might not get it, that the whole thing might be a little bigger than what even he could understand at first. In that light, the resolution of the second movie is actually a huge mistake. They should never have tried to cover it up -- Dent wasn't the hero Gotham needed at all. We don't see a Batman that really "gets" what being Batman is all about until Bruce comes back from Bane's prison.
Interesting insight.
I did think the idea of Batman moving from 'no fear' to 'fear as a motivator' was interesting, and probably could have been better used by relating it to other events in the movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:The middle class is represented by Commissioner Gordon and Deputy Commissioner Foley. Notice that both characters are swept up into the machinations of the rich and powerful, tearing them apart. The congressmen Selina snookers tells Foley that Gordon is a dinosaur on his way out at the mayor's swank party honoring Dent. And later on, Foley holes up in his house and does nothing while the city falls apart -- i.e., the middle class abdicates its leadership in society, its role as a social stabilizer, out of fear and impotence. Remember how Gordon chides him for having his wife answer the door for him? Pretty emasculating. And Gordon yells at Foley "the answer has to come from inside the city!" when Foley says the government will deal with it, eventually.
To be honest, any meaningful theme of class warfare was lost once Bane was written as an outside force, the leader of an ancient terrorist order.
Had Bane been part of the oppressed, and gained his position of power through appealing to those disaffected by the Dent Act and the income disparity, well then you'd have some real grit to hang social commentary on. Instead his power comes from charisma and outside money, and the script is forced to only make passing and largely superficial reference to class.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:After watching it, I still don't get the crazy airplane thing> It just seemed really stupid. I have no idea why the CIA plane didn't.... I don't know.... turn when the other one came up on it?
I believe the CIA plane wasn't aware of the other plane until the clamps were set and it was too late. Which is hardly a stretch, planes don't really have complete awareness of their surroundings.
The bigger question is why the CIA guys didn't start shooting Bane and his minions once the plan was in motion.
I also think Nolan and his Btamna team still can't film a decent craftsman like action scenes.
Really? The bank heist that opened The Dark Knight? The attack on the police convoy transporting Harvey Dent?
These weren't good action scenes to you?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/15 04:13:02
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:I did think the idea of Batman moving from 'no fear' to 'fear as a motivator' was interesting, and probably could have been better used by relating it to other events in the movie.
I agree wholeheartedly. This was a very strong theme amid the cacophony and it could have bee used to much better effect.
sebster wrote:To be honest, any meaningful theme of class warfare was lost once Bane was written as an outside force, the leader of an ancient terrorist order.
Had Bane been part of the oppressed, and gained his position of power through appealing to those disaffected by the Dent Act and the income disparity, well then you'd have some real grit to hang social commentary on. Instead his power comes from charisma and outside money, and the script is forced to only make passing and largely superficial reference to class.
I think the idea here is to say that the downtrodden are stirred up by "external" forces that never seek the good of the downtrodden. In other words, a classic reactionary position -- "be careful what you wish for, ye paupers, you might get more than you can imagine." This is pretty explicit with Selina, when her buddy says "oh, I thought this is what you wanted."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/15 05:01:10
Manchu wrote:I think the idea here is to say that the downtrodden are stirred up by "external" forces that never seek the good of the downtrodden. In other words, a classic reactionary position -- "be careful what you wish for, ye paupers, you might get more than you can imagine."
True, and that's ultimately, to me at least, a lot less interesting than the idea of a villain who rises up through the support of people who were downtrodden by an overly zealous law and order campaign put in place in the wake of the Joker. I mean, the Dent act, the army that was literally underground, the commentary this could make on Batman's own rather authoritarian brand of justice... it's all there.
That said, I think it might be a little unfair of me to criticise the film for lacking a strong political core, and instead only making passing reference to political issues. Afterall, that's more than most other superhero movies do, and all the previous Nolan Batman films did.
This is pretty explicit with Selina, when her buddy says "oh, I thought this is what you wanted."
Good pick up.
I remember the scene but missed that line (well, I think so, I'm guessing it was when the two of them were in that looted apartment?)
Was that the last scene with the friend? She just seemed to kind of disappear from the movie. I had thought during the movie that the 'erase a person's life' software wasn't going to be for Selina at all, but for her friend. Afterall, it seemed like Selina was doing fine, and the film even made a point of mentioning she didn't actually have a conviction on her record, whereas the friend seemed to really be struggling.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:That said, I think it might be a little unfair of me to criticise the film for lacking a strong political core, and instead only making passing reference to political issues.
I think it's totally fair of you because (1) the film pretends to have a strong political core with its ceaseless talk of politics and political imagery and (2) Nolan's batfilms are consciously designed to NOT be a "superhero movie" in the usual sense of that term (compare DKR with the Avengers, for example).
I remember the scene but missed that line (well, I think so, I'm guessing it was when the two of them were in that looted apartment?)
There's a montage of "time passing in chaos" after Bane breaks Bruce with Selina walking all over Gotham. At the end of the scene, IIRC, the friend throws Selina's words in her face -- whether out of spite or not is ambiguous. I can't figure out if the friend is supposed to be a deadpan critique of Selina's attitude and lifestyle (like an amalgamated angel-devil on the shoulder) or just a prop. But speak of the angel-devil:
Was that the last scene with the friend? She just seemed to kind of disappear from the movie. I had thought during the movie that the 'erase a person's life' software wasn't going to be for Selina at all, but for her friend. Afterall, it seemed like Selina was doing fine, and the film even made a point of mentioning she didn't actually have a conviction on her record, whereas the friend seemed to really be struggling.
I never got the impression that Selina wanted the "fresh start" for anyone but herself ... until the very end when she is finally capable of wanting it for others, specifically Bruce. IMO, Anne Hathaway did a fine job putting a little edge of hysteria into her performance whenever the issue of the inescapable past came up so that the audience could feel that this otherwise cool customer had a very real fear driving her actions. There again was the issue of fear and the need to overcome fear that only too subtly connects to Bruce's own experience in Bane's prison. When Bruce returns, he offers Selina a life without fear by giving her the flash drive. The result is that Selina discovers that the fear of her past is not the only thing that drives her -- now she is driven by the fear of being nothing more than a selfish crook by leaving Batman alone to save Gotham -- in other words, she's afraid that her future, even with the fresh start, will be just like her past and that in this way she will not be able to escape her past even if she can erase the record of her past. This is a new brand of fear for Selina: it's what Christians in times past would have understood as a fear for one's immortal soul over and above one's mortal body. When Bruce makes the jump without the rope, it's not just the fear that he will fall and die that drives him. It's the the fear that if he falls and dies then Gotham will likely die, too.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/15 14:05:51
I also think Nolan and his Btamna team still can't film a decent craftsman like action scenes.
Really? The bank heist that opened The Dark Knight? The attack on the police convoy transporting Harvey Dent?
These weren't good action scenes to you?
Granted, I'm not an expert, however the focus in my statement is craftsmen like.
The editing in those scenes is all over the place, the flow of action is jumbled, and the camera changes directions and angles in a disorienting way. Perhaps the intention was to make it that way to add to the jarring effect of the scenes. I don't know.
However, from a craft standpoint, it was not well executed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/15 17:41:31
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Frazzled wrote:Meh Michelle Pfeiffer did it better, and could act.
Odd, I remember people saying similar things about the Heath Ledger as the Joker.....
Different movies. Burton was going for crazy funny. Heath Ledger just did Charles Manson as the Joker.
I liked Heath Ledger, but he aint gak against Jack Nicholson. Jack Nicholson invented crazy.
I watched the Heath Ledger one recently again and I got the vibe he was channeling the Jack Torrence vibe from the Shining. You're right Jack Nicholson invented crazy, but he didn't bring it to the Batman set back in 89.
I watched the Heath Ledger one recently again and I got the vibe he was channeling the Jack Torrence vibe from the Shining. You're right Jack Nicholson invented crazy, but he didn't bring it to the Batman set back in 89.
They focused on the darker Joker-- like from Batman R.I.P. and A Death in the Family or the Killing Joke, instead of the goofball joker that Nicholson portrayed. They're both accurate, just different sides to the same character. Although I do love Nicholson's Joker, Ledger's is truer to the more serious comics.
I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
Since this already got brought back up, just wanted to say I thought this post really nailed it! (See quote below)
Da Boss wrote: Overall I liked the film, but I can agree with the people wondering what the hell Bane was doing in between capturing the city and detonating the bomb. I mean, we explicitly see him actually twiddling his thumbs at the court scenes more than once.
The film was extremely longwinded. To me, it seemed it was trying to do too much. It seemed to have several comics that it was drawing on as inspiration:
Dark Knight Returns: Aged and jaded batman pulled back into action by crisis.
Vengeance of Bane: Bane's backstory.
KnightFall: The breaking of Batman by Bane.
KnightsEnd: Batman's recovery and resurgence.
Cataclysm: Gotham is hit by a large disaster and descends into anarachy.
No Man's Land: Gotham, cut off from the rest of the United States and minus Batman, descends into tribalism and gang violence until Batman returns to restore order.
You could bundle the robin plotline into variously, the robin miniseries and nightwing graphic novels of the late nineties, but really it was it's own, separate story, along with Catwoman.
Any one of those comics could have made an amazing film. With all of them being used, you've got something slightly less coherent, overly long, and I suppose a bit stretched.
While as a long time batman fan, I was happy with all the little nods and the execution of the various bits, I felt that as film, it didn't hang together as well as Dark Knight. It was just a bit too ambitious to do everything it wanted to do as well as it could.
Highlights:
The cast. Bale does a brilliant and subtle job as a burned out batman. Caine continues to be awesome as Alfred. The younger fella they had playing Blake (yer man from Brick) was superb, and really drew me in. Hathaway did a great job as Catwoman. Hardy was superb as Bane, and the switch from good to evil for Talia was awesome. As usual, Gordon was bloody awesome as well because everything Gary Oldman does is amazing.
The last 3 minutes: The build up to revealing that Batman faked his own death, and that Blake/Robin is going to take over now (with the awesome "rising" end shot) sent me out of the film on a massive high.
Problems:
The two best protagonists (Gordon and Wayne) were sort of "out of it" for a lot of the movie.
The movie is too long. It has too many parts, and they feel pretty disconnected from each other.
The motivations of the antagonists are not clear, or not compelling. Similarly, the actions of the feds are not believable, to me.
Low Points:
The cops charging the army of goons at the end. I know it was all symbolology, but I didn't like it at all. It took what has primarily been a gritty and "real" franchise and made it silly. It's not WW1 any more, and those cops would not have done that. Anyway, after 3 months in the dark, I'd have said they'd have been suffering uncoupled circadian rhythms as well as probably some nasty infections brought on by gakking in close quarters for that long. And then Bane and Batman have another fist fight instead of someone just nailing bane with a rifle or something. Beh. Didn't work, but I guess they didn't have time for anything better.
Batman's recovery. Totally unbelievable, to be honest. But hey. I guess rage is the best medicine.
The cheesy love scene with Wayne and Talia. WTF. "Oh, we got rained on, and we're in a film. I guess we gotta shag now. And now that we've shagged, you are obsessively in love with me." I dunno, maybe Talia is a weasel in the sack or something.
Manchu wrote: I think it's totally fair of you because (1) the film pretends to have a strong political core with its ceaseless talk of politics and political imagery and (2) Nolan's batfilms are consciously designed to NOT be a "superhero movie" in the usual sense of that term (compare DKR with the Avengers, for example).
True.
I never got the impression that Selina wanted the "fresh start" for anyone but herself ... until the very end when she is finally capable of wanting it for others, specifically Bruce. IMO, Anne Hathaway did a fine job putting a little edge of hysteria into her performance whenever the issue of the inescapable past came up so that the audience could feel that this otherwise cool customer had a very real fear driving her actions. There again was the issue of fear and the need to overcome fear that only too subtly connects to Bruce's own experience in Bane's prison. When Bruce returns, he offers Selina a life without fear by giving her the flash drive. The result is that Selina discovers that the fear of her past is not the only thing that drives her -- now she is driven by the fear of being nothing more than a selfish crook by leaving Batman alone to save Gotham -- in other words, she's afraid that her future, even with the fresh start, will be just like her past and that in this way she will not be able to escape her past even if she can erase the record of her past. This is a new brand of fear for Selina: it's what Christians in times past would have understood as a fear for one's immortal soul over and above one's mortal body. When Bruce makes the jump without the rope, it's not just the fear that he will fall and die that drives him. It's the the fear that if he falls and dies then Gotham will likely die, too.
Yeah, there was never a hint of it being for anyone but herself. I just thought that might be the case, considering that friend was shown struggling and needing Selina to rescue her from guys and things. I thought the friend might have been in the movie for a reason. Turns out she wasn't and just got forgotten about by the end
I agree that Hathaway was excellent. Good breakdown of Selina's story, that summarised it nicely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Granted, I'm not an expert, however the focus in my statement is craftsmen like.
The editing in those scenes is all over the place, the flow of action is jumbled, and the camera changes directions and angles in a disorienting way. Perhaps the intention was to make it that way to add to the jarring effect of the scenes. I don't know.
However, from a craft standpoint, it was not well executed.
I most certainly am not an expert but I thought both those scenes were told really well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/22 06:22:34
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
